Read the Kraft comment you yourself quoted. If you believe the non-NFL sponsored CTE research (I have read it and and I do), then any concussions can create those risk factors. That condition can happen as a result of any concussions. Now you are apparently an amateur scientist who has done an independent study on all sports in order to discredit Kraft's statement. Are you claiming there are no concussions in soccer, or are you claiming to have followed players post-soccer and have collected data on whether they exhibit depression type symptoms? Or maybe you are a medical research scientist and have done your own comprehensive study on CTE. I seriously doubt it.
Yeah, I am a brain injury scientist, otherwise I am not qualified to have an opinion.
If you want to think that dozens of women's soccer players will be killing themselves due to CTE, feel free, but I will disagree.
So ultimately, his statement, which does not say NFL football is comparable to women's soccer expressly (as you interpret it in your opinion), must be read that way because that is how YOU read it. There is no other possible way to read it, because you have talked to Robert Kraft and that is what he meant in saying it. I don't think so. No, you do not appear to hate Kraft at all.
When asked about the report, he compared the concussion issue to Womens soccer. You can deny that if you wish.
In a world of contact sports, what would you like him to say? What would have made you proud and happy? His response to the specific question in the Times/NFL fight was 'inaccurate', and then he deflected the question. How does that word have greater import validating the NFL position? Is that him, or is that your read injecting your opinion as to what precisely was inaccurate in the reporter's statement. Were they talking about the substance of the report, or the statement included in the question itself?
They asked him about the report, and he said it was inaccurate. I tend to believe the NY Times report.
I think the NFL is on the wrong side of this issue, and it is disappointing to me that Kraft endorses their position. You do not need to mince every word to have an opinion, or to understand mine.
If you want football outlawed, then stop watching it.
Did I ever say that? Why are you throwing a strawman into the middle of the argument?
If you agree with the way the NFL has handled the concussion issue, that is fine, and you can then agree that Kraft is fine with his comments. I do not, so I find it hypocritical to rip the league for their position, and dismiss Kraft standing behind that position. In essence Kraft has said the way the NFL is handling concussions is correct in his view. I disagree.
My reference to "assumption of the risk" doctrine is that a player who knows the risk can proceed with that risky endeavor if he so chooses (there is an obligation to not conceal hidden risks in order to reach that point). If you want to believe that the movie Concussion and all the discussion around it should not flag some serious issues for players and parents thinking about life in the NFL, then I am not sure what you have been reading on the subject of late. That was the point of the statement.
Didn't the NFL mislead people in giving false data making them feel the risk was less than it is?
The assumption of risk is supposed to be based upon honest information. The NFL has settled a lawsuit for millions of dollars that claimed they misrepresented the risk and many players assumed that risk based upon false information that was purported to be fact.
Do you disagree with that? And if not, do you not see how Kraft is now standing behind it?
I never said the NFL was being 'forthright', or personally condoned its report or approach, so please read what is written and not what you would like it to read to further your position.
Kindly do the same.
The NFL is playing PR games in order to maintain viewership when they should have created a fund for all those affected (and any other serious health issues in retired players who have made the sport). That position will always be reprehensible. I will not defend the NFL or anyone who defends its position (and I don't think I 've seen much of that here). What I said is I do not believe Kraft did more than dodge a question and speak well of the sport of football generally, specifically in this statement and on this particular occasion. If you want to read more, and you apparently will as nobody can suggest otherwise, then have at it.
Kraft was asked about concussions in the NFL and compared it to womens soccer, then asked about the NYT report and called it inaccurate. That is Kraft aligning with the factions of the NFL that have perpetrated the fraud in question.
I'm not sure why you would need to get all melodramatic and say that because I disagree with you no one can suggest otherwise. I am stating
